________________________________________________________________________________________
Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008
1. The ability to predict the outcome of a specific experiment precisely.
2. Error-free foretelling.
Plato defined knowledge as ‘justified true belief’ (JTB), and his successors have not improved on his
proposal in 2000 years. Indeed, it is relying on Plato’s JTB definition that religionists manage to persuade
the pushover that they ‘know’ God (by which they mean that they know of God’s existence). The
reasoning goes something like this:
1. Knowledge is belief.
2. I believe in God.
3. Therefore, I know that God exists.
However, this version reduces all knowledge to subjective opinions and is impossible to use consistently.
For instance,
1. Knowledge is belief
2. I don’t believe in God.
3. Therefore, I know God doesn’t exist.
So what have we learned? Clearly, JTB is an inadequate definition in a scientific context. And this is
where we are today in the ongoing debate between theists and atheists.
A good approach for arriving at a definition of knowledge that we can use consistently in a dissertation is
to brainstorm the properties we typically associate with this formidable word. Knowledge seems to enjoy
three essential features. It alludes to:
1. what you demonstrate to others
2. in a single experiment,
3. and to the future rather than to the past.
The way you demonstrate knowledge to someone is by predicting what is going to happen in a specific
experiment. And before you can make a prediction in front of an impartial jury, you must run the entire film
in your head first. You have to visualize the experiment from beginning to end, including its result. In
Science, we allude to this visualization as an explanation. You are giving us your version of how a
physical event we are all familiar with happened. A prosecutor acts as his own juror.
For example, Hank Morgan, Twain’s Connecticut Yankee, saved his skin by ‘predicting’ unequivocally that
an eclipse would occur. He knew! I can predict that this pencil is going to fall to the center of the Earth
when I let go of it. If my prediction comes true, then in retrospect I knew! And you can probably predict
that it’s going to rain in the next few minutes when you see certain types of clouds in the sky. If it rains,
you knew! If not, you didn’t. You merely had a hunch. You risked an intelligent or lucky guess based on
experience and it proved to be wrong.
In other words, the way to certify knowledge is to make a specific prediction and then prove it objectively
with an experiment or by observing the phenomenon. We test knowledge with a single experiment. If we
were to attempt to determine knowledge with a series of experiments, we would have to run the test
incessantly and then some more. There would be no possibility of knowledge because the definition
would leave a loophole.
For example, it is unscientific to say that you know that gravity will ALWAYS pull this pen to the center of
the Earth when you let go of it. We have no way of testing your statement within our lifetimes. We can only
test whether you know that this pen will fall to the floor if we let go of it NOW. This is a black and white, yes
or no type of issue. The pen either falls to the ground or doesn’t and, in retrospect, you either knew or you
didn’t. This definition summarily circumscribes knowledge to future, specific events.
The skeptic and devil’s advocate will reply that the attributes I just identified – future, single experiment, to
others – do not enable us to discern between authentic knowledge and lucky or intelligent guesses. What
if you were merely speculating and it turns out that you just got lucky? What if we run another identical
experiment and the results are different? It certainly seems that the only foolproof way to tell the
difference between knowledge and guess is through a series of repeatable experiments. For example,
you may claim to know that this pen is always going to fall to the ground. But we cannot be absolutely
sure that this is true unless we run many experiments. So how many should we run before we certify
knowledge?
Actually, let’s get to the point: there is no such thing as knowledge. No person can factor or consider all
the variables that may affect an experiment. We simply cannot predict the future precisely whether we run
one or many trials. For example, the mathematicians at NASA calculated the exact itinerary of the
Challenger and predicted that the shuttle would go into orbit. Obviously, the Fates had other plans for it.
In retrospect, the mathematicians at the control center were not predicting, but rather speculating. They
did not have every bit of information necessary to tell you exactly what would transpire.
So now, let’s do the pen experiment 10 times just to reinforce this argument. You make a prediction
immediately before each trial and we run the experiment. We do this nine times and you predict
successfully that the pen falls to the floor. On our last run, we let go of the pen, but it miraculously stays
floating in the air. Now we have confirmed that you didn’t really know. You were just guessing all along.
While you are still pondering this miracle, I disclose my secret to you. The reason the pen stayed in the air
was that I asked a friend of mine to turn on a strong electromagnet during that final trial, a factor you didn’t
‘know’ about.
You may argue that my prank proved nothing. We all ‘know’ that gravity pulls everything down.
However, your statement is unscientific because it is not specific enough. We have no way of testing it. It
is irrational to run tests incessantly to empirically prove or confirm your categorical claim. The objective
facts are that you failed to predict 100% of the times. Consider, for instance, what if the pen had stayed in
the air without my friend's intervention? What if Mother Nature decides to play a trick on us? What if this
phenomenon is one of her laws or one of those rare exceptions to one of her laws? What will this say
about your ability to predict and about your absolute ‘knowledge’ of gravity? You didn't prove that you
know. You proved that you can guess intelligently (i.e., speculation based on experience).
Nevertheless, an individual may have all the material facts under his control (weight, speed, variables), but
never control the actions of living entities. You may allege to 'know' or predict that your son is going to eat
the candy you leave on the table, perhaps because you 'know' him so well. This is not knowledge, but
again just a guess. What if we check later and discover that he did not eat the candy. Maybe he wasn't
hungry or he was sidetracked by something else or an earthquake opened the floor beneath him and
swallowed him before he swallowed the candy. What does this say about your alleged 'knowledge.' Your
ability to predict was objectively refuted.
In Science, there is no such thing as knowledge simply because scientists don't do predictions. Only
idiots known as relativists do predictions. However, like astrologers and palm readers, these individuals
are not a part of Science. Science is the body of explanations that follow the scientific method. There is no
provision for experiments or for Mathematics in the definition of Science. In Science, we don't prove. In
Science, we explain. Science is the ability to explain; not the ability to predict. The Romans mistakenly
used the word scire ('to know') or scientia ('knowledge') in the context of an explanation (i.e., a consum-
mated event). This is where we got side-tracked in our definitions of Science and knowledge.